On August 19, 2024, the US Department of Homeland Security began accepting applications for a new program they announced called “Keeping Families Together” which was a process for certain noncitizen spouses and noncitizen stepchildren of U.S. citizens to request parole-in-place. This program was implemented using existing statutory authority that allowed for parole-in-place in other circumstances such as parents and spouses of members of the U.S. armed forces.

Immediately after the programs debut on August 19, 2024, several US States filed a lawsuit challenging the program as unlawful and seeking an injunction to block its implementation. A temporary injunction was put in place preventing USCIS from adjudicating or approving any of the applications that were filed during the three days that the program was open.

The program is dead now after this Court’s decision. I don’t think anyone was really holding out hope for the program to continue after the election results came in but now it is official and there is yet another AILA webpage easter egg to stumble onto one day and wonder what could have been (they also have a page explaining the Court’s decision and that the program is donezo now).

If you don’t know what, “the program is dead and gone forever” means and you still have questions then you can visit the USCIS frequently asked questions about Keeping Families Together page. On the top of the page it explains that the program has ended per the Court’s Order, so go away (paraphrasing).

SOME OF THE DETAILS OF THE LAWSUIT FOR THOSE WHO MIGHT BE INTERESTED

The states challenged DHS’s policy on multiple grounds, alleging that 1) it was not granting this benefit on a case-by-case basis but issuing a blanket authorization for a class of individuals; 2) it was not for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit; 3) it contradicted the INA’s language, which referred to paroling people “into” the U.S. rather than granting parole when someone was already in the country, and only covered a temporary parole; 4) it violated the INA by circumventing the federal immigration system (whatever that means); 5) it violated the APA because it was arbitrary and capricious; 6) it was created without requisite notice-and-comment and information collection procedures; and 7) it violated the constitutional requirement that the president “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

On November 7, 2024, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in State of Texas v. Department of Homeland Security, Case Number 24-cv-306 (E.D.T.X. Nov. 7, 2024) issued a final judgment vacating the Keeping Families Together (KFT) parole process, published at 89 Fed. Reg. 67,459 (Aug. 20, 2024). If you want to know the reasoning for the judgement then you probably want to read the full finding of facts and conclusions of law.

As for the second ground, the Court found that parole “into” the US meant that when interpreting whether the parole was for humanitarian reasons or to confer some public benefit they should look to the person’s presence in the US pursuant to the parole not the new legal status afforded to the person as a result of the parole. This doesn’t make much sense to me though since parole-in-place is for people who are already physically present in the US that is what distinguishes it from regular parole.

“As the court has rejected the Rule’s reading of parole “into the United States,” it also concludes that the Rule focuses on the wrong thing in identifying “significant public benefits”— the benefits of aliens’ new legal status, rather than their presence in this country. The Rule exceeds statutory authority and is not in accordance with law for this reason as well.”

As to the third ground, that the parole must be temporary, the Court agreed that this new program conferred a permanent status which was not inline with the original authority. This too seems wrong as the parole is temporary. The temporary parole makes these particular individuals eligible to apply for a permanent immigration benefit but the parole itself does not confer a permanent benefit. This seems very obvious so I must be missing something.

Plaintiffs next claim that the KFT Rule exceeds statutory authority because the statute allows an alien’s parole into the United States only “temporarily,” until “the purposes of such parole shall . . . have been served.” 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A). The gravamen of this claim, however, is that the statute does not allow paroling aliens for the purpose of removing a barrier to permanent resident status. Doc. 1 at 40 (complaining that the Rule’s “explicitly stated intent” is allowing beneficiaries to remain permanently in the United States). That essentially repeats the claim for relief just discussed, so the court does not see the need to resolve this claim separately.

You can find the Court’s Full Decision here. They granted it based on the first three grounds only, which are addressed above. The Court didn’t not go into the other grounds in detail.

The USCIS website now states that effective immediately, USCIS is taking the following steps to comply with the Court’s Order:

• Pending Form I-131F applications will not be adjudicated and intake of new Form I-131F applications will cease.
• Anyone with a future Application Support Center appointment in support of a filed Form I-131F should consider that appointment cancelled immediately. Anyone who appears for such an appointment will be turned away.
• External engagements on the KFT parole process are cancelled.